PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 798.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Nov 10, 2004
American Home Fire Safety Act - Requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to evaluate and report to Congress on: (1) the interaction of bedclothing with the mattress in a fire and methodologies to improve the fire resistance of these products; (2) the current risk candles create as an ignition source in the home and the effectiveness of and level of compliance with the ASTM International Standard Specification for Fire Safety for Candles.
Requires the Commission, if it has not promulgated a rule to improve the fire retardancy of upholstered furniture by June 1, 2005, to transmit a report to Congress explaining why such rule was not issued.
Requires the Commission, if it has not issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding fire safe mattresses by June 1, 2005, to: (1) initiate a study to evaluate methodologies to improve fire resistance of such mattresses by June 30, 2005; (2) perform a comparative cost-benefit analysis of a mattress standard that would mandate 30-, 45-, and 60-minute flashover prevention; and (3) report its findings and recommendations to Congress.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Commission to create a registry of fire-retardant chemicals by June 1, 2005. Requires the registry to include: (1) a list of manufacturers producing fire-retardant chemicals for sale or use in or on Commission-regulated products sold or used in the United States; (2) a list of such chemicals for each manufacturer; (3) a ranking of sales of such chemicals by each manufacturer measured by volume of chemicals sold; and (4) a list of studies and reports on the human impact of such chemicals performed by those manufacturers.
Requires the Commission to submit an annual report to Congress on the results of the registry.
Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Hollings, Ernest F. [D-SC] · D–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 798.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator McCain under authority of the order of the Senate of 10/11/04 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator McCain under authority of the order of the Senate of 10/11/04 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 108-964.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR 10/31/2003 S13662)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR 10/31/2003 S13661-13662)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1798 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1798 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1798 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1798 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.